Mr Callinan.Why dont you put your feet under a desk not owned by a politician or a political party and do some proper homework.It is sheer first grade naivety to rattle off your list of world politicians and imply that because they are supporting your view then it must be so.

They are making political statements to protect a voting base that is being stirred up by greenies, and an uninformed press who in turn are being mislead by lazy journalists who just publish press releases without checking.The greenies have never let any science get in the way of a beat up, or funding drive, or manipulation of the political scene. It is has nothing to do with facts of the position at all.

As for David King he has to be an embarrassment to the once proud UK scientific establishment.

Why dont you read the recent UK Houses of Parliament Report on the Economics of GW, and/or the latest from Castles and Henderson on how dredful is the economic analysis in the IPCC reports. When you have finished that,read some of the latest postings on CO2Science.
There are many more to add to these to show that your implication of there being overwhelming agreement/consensus, political and scientific, is complete bollocks.

Big Mal, I’ve done my homework, so much so that above you also list me as a myopic academic.

If you disagree with the world’s academic academies, Jacques Chirac AND George W Bush, you’d better have some convincing objections.

If your point is that I am wrong because of an ‘improvable’ conspiracy then you haven’t convinced me.

I’ve read all the reports from UK Parliament and the various contributions from Castles and Henderson. In very different ways both made contributions to the economic and scientific debate. But neither supports your view that political and scientific argument is not overwhelming.

As for the good folk at CO2Science.com, they are funded by Western Fuels Association, a US coal lobby. Ten second’s examination via google tells me this family operation has a little less weight than the national academies, see: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Everyone on earth doesn’t agree that climate change is worth worrying about but there IS absolutely overwhelming political and scientific agreement that we should worry.

What is bollocks is that an ever dwindling number of people is able to continue to peddle rubbish because their view has traditional recognition as the ‘other side’ of the argument.

Mr Callinan.
1.How any one can say they have read the Lords Report and the various Castles/Henderson material and NOT conclude that there is something seriously awry with this whole IPCC argument just beggars belief.
2.Who cares how C02 Science is funded and how is that any different to people like your self being employed by political parties/masters or publically funded researches and academics.In any case, all they do is provide comments/review on the research done by others. If they are wrong, then so are the research papers they review.
3.Why is the review work done by C02 Science any different to the attempts by commentators like your self. Why are they wrong and you are right.
4.As for the academy of sciences press release, that was done just prior to the last G8 in Scotland under the Chairmanship of Blair, the outcome of which was its own testimony to what is real.

I return to my original comments namely that I am well pleased that my goverment did not sign up to Kyoto, its a complete joke. The latest deal involving China and India et al, and concentrating on solving a problem that is better defined in the first place is a much better way of going, despite what you say

My understanding of the climate modelling is that CO2 is deemed to remain in the atmosphers for 50 years. My problem with this is that when I cut down an ironbark and mill it for house frames etc, the IPCC has already assumed that all that carbon is already in the atmosphere. So the carbon will be deemed to have broken down long before the wood even starts to emit CO2.

I am not a hot shot maths geek but even I can tell that this might distort the scenario somewhat.

Martin,

Are you claiming that Tony Blair, Paul Martin, Junichiro Koizumi, Gerhard Schroder, Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi, Jacques Chirac, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and David King are experts in the field of climatology?

David King, supposedly Britains chief Scientist, had a major dummy spit when he was not allowed to control Russia's serious review of the knowledge and claims about climate change. He behaved like a spoilt little child by refusing to answer questions, storming off the podium and then threatening Russia with political action. After listening to the uncertainties and doubts, Russia decided to join Kyoto in order to obtain financial advantages from western Europe. Putin won't acknowledge that publicly but his leading scientists do.

Berlusconi's government was the first European government to indicate that they would be pulling out at the earliest opportunity. Germany has recently indicated that it wants to exit the Kyoto Agreement and join the Asia-Pacific Agreement (ie. the US, Australia, China & India agreement).

To counter your list of non-scientists (except for the biologist David King), I suggest readers take a look at the research by Professor hans von Storch that found that fewer than 20% of 500 international climatologists and meteorologists considered that human activities have played a significant part in recent warming.

PS. Why do you say that Gerhard Schroder is president of the United States? Is this an indication of the quality of your investigations?

Big Mal,

1) I have confidence in the IPCC after reading Lords report, C&H etc. because I have also read dozens of other reports that offer far more compelling counter arguments.

2) Whose coin one takes is whose tune one sings.

3) My case is born from the interests of the many, while C02 Science’s is born from the interests of one part of one industry. The fact that virtually all the world’s scientists and the world’s leaders agree with me also, I think, says something.

My point, a point of my article, is that the latest deal involving China and India et al., has very little prospect of reducing emissions anytime soon and may even further delay international efforts to reduce emissions.

Perseus,

Carbon accounting for forests is complicated and many uncertainties remain. All nations, particularly Scandinavian countries, recognize this and it remains one of the issues to be ironed out at Kyoto Meeting of Parties 1 (MOP1) in Montreal soon. Australia though is not a party.

Kyoto is neither a fraud nor a con; it is simply our best attempt. It has shortcomings; the biggest being only indirect in that it has enabled scant progress to date but I’d suggest this lack of progress and clarity is largely a result of lobbying by some fossil fuel companies which perceive the obliged reduction in emissions as a threat their interests.

Snowman,

Clearly, the politicians listed are of my political “ilk” on this issue. And yes, well spotted, there should be a comma in there to separate the German Chancellor from the US President; a cut and paste mistake; sorry for all the confusion.

Does Germany want to exit the Kyoto Agreement and join the Asia-Pacific Agreement or did one business group in Germany recently suggest this? Can you post a reference?

Can you also post a reference to Professor Hans Von Storch’s work that fewer than 20% of 500 international climatologists and meteorologists considered that human activities have played a significant part in recent warming.

Q. When and how should we reduce our emissions?